RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[Aldarc]

We just got on usual sidetracks thanks to the confusing forgey language as is traditional.

The issue seems less rooted in it "confusing," but, rather, that usual people who come ot these threads with axes to grind wanted to find any wrong doing in what Baker wrote precisely because of his association with the Forge. In this case, these people seem to have landed on quibbling the use of "negotiation."

What is definitional to roleplay, is taking a role of a character.

It seems obvious to point this out, but one does not mutually exclude the other.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It seems obvious to point this out, but one does not mutually exclude the other.

Sure!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure, it is imagination. And not necessarily shared kind. Imagining being an another person doesn't require sharing that imagination. Now sure, if you're playing with other you share some parts of it. But saying that roleplaying is about shred imagination is insufficient.

Insufficient in what way?

And in what way would “taking on a role” be more sufficient?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Insufficient in what way?

That is is not roleplaying unless you take a role. Once Upon a Time is a game run by shared imagination. It is not an RPG.

And in what way would “taking on a role” be more sufficient?

In a way that you need to supplement the imagination with that for it to become roleplay.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure!

You say sure, but...

That is is not roleplaying unless you take a role. Once Upon a Time is a game run by shared imagination. It is not an RPG.

In a way that you need to supplement the imagination with that for it to become roleplay.

You seem to be arguing as if "roleplaying is taking a role of a character" and "roleplaying is negotiated imagination" are mutually exclusive and/or competing definitions rather than elements or features that are commonly characteristic of roleplaying.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That is is not roleplaying unless you take a role. Once Upon a Time is a game run by shared imagination. It is not an RPG.

Who claimed it was? No one said imagination belongs solely to RPGs. The OP claimed that shared imagining is the core of RPG play.

Which seems pretty bloody obvious to most of us.

In a way that you need to supplement the imagination with that for it to become roleplay.

Good god man.

The effort to deny that imagination is foundational to roleplay. It’s impressive in a way.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You say sure, but...

You seem to be arguing as if "roleplaying is taking a role of a character" and "roleplaying is negotiated imagination" are mutually exclusive and/or competing definitions rather than elements or features that are commonly characteristic of roleplaying.

No I am not. Merely that one alone isn't sufficient. Granted, I think you technically can roleplay alone by just assuming a role of a character and not sharing your imagination with anyone, but that is not how it usually is done, nor are RPGs generally built to be played that way. (Though maybe there are some niche games that support such an approach?)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Who claimed it was? No one said imagination belongs solely to RPGs. The OP claimed that shared imagining is the core of RPG play.

Which seems pretty bloody obvious to most of us.

This is what I said:

I don't think the initial point of imagination being a significant component of RPGs is particularly controversial. We just got on usual sidetracks thanks to the confusing forgey language as is traditional. However, if the point was that this reliance on imagination is what defines roleplay, then I don't agree. For example Once Upon a Time definitely relies on imagination, yet it is not a roleplaying game. What is definitional to roleplay, is taking a role of a character.

If. So if we instead think that it is a crucial but not alone sufficient aspect, then we are in agreement.

 

[Aldarc]

No I am not. Merely that one alone isn't sufficient. Granted, I think you technically can roleplay alone by just assuming a role of a character and not sharing your imagination with anyone, but that is not how it usually is done, nor are RPGs generally built to be played that way.

Okay. That clarification helps.

(Though maybe there are some niche games that support such an approach?)

I would, however, still argue that the imagined fiction has to be negotiated in solo games like Ironsworn, with the mechanics serving the function of facilitating that process.

 

[clearstream]

* The thatched-roof cottage is on fire from the Red Dragon's breath? Is the nearby cistern on slight elevation compared to the cottage? Wooden legs? Any rot? Will a well-placed arrow knock it from its foundation and spread water onto the cottage?

* Is the Reach of this NPC qualify as "Threatening" for where I'm at? If I move away will it provoke an opportunity attack?

Per my #517 it is accurate to call this "clarifying".

* Can I use my Fireball like a concussive blast of displaced air right nearby the hobgoblin phalanx to cow them into parley? Like in a "I don't have to miss" kind of moment? Maybe get out of combat and get Advantage in a Social Interaction exchange?

In D&D this is clarifying, as it is a question about how Social Interaction rules interact with the fireball spell. There is ambiguity, so the rules are clear that the DM gets to assert how the interaction will play out. It's an example of how clarifying can lead into negotiating, as I will explain below.

* Summon any conversation around 5e Background Traits like the ample one we had with @hawkeyefan 's Folk Hero.

This is an example of how clarifying leads into negotiating depending on the mode of play. Traditional DM ownership of what the rules entail means that player asks for clarification and accepts the given ruling. Negotiation during play is discouraged. But in other modes of play it would be open to discussion how participants feel it should work, most importantly the player possessing the trait. I've observed such conversations many times in our Avatar sessions over the last few weeks.

* If I heave my maul overhead and sling it end over end at the roof of the cave's mouth, can I start a cave-in to prevent or slow the advance of the pyroclasm into our chamber?

Again, clarification.

* GM gets a weird result on NPC Reaction Roll and has to make up details that complies with the weird result. This may or may not open up previously unforeseen lines of play socially for PCs so we have to perform a credibility test when one or more of those prospects are brought to bear upon the gamestate.

This sounds like it will lead to negotiation, because it is moving into ambiguous areas where ownership is (if I understand the example correctly) likely shared. It sounds to me like you are picturing the GM proposing rather than asserting, due to circumstantial factors bearing on it.